Two case studies in the social construction of television technology

The following cases address turning points in televisions history

moments when the interplay of material sciences, engineering, corporate
interest and politics shaped the mediums technology. Since they are
historical examples, we can look back and assess what happened, judging
whether the best engineering solution won the day, or whether more
complicated interactions among these factors ultimately gave form to
technology. But our goal is not to be historical detectives; rather, it is
negotiate among an array of aligned and sometimes competing interests
to see how, if we were starting afresh, solutions might be formed. There
are no right or wrong answers, but rather strategies, arguments and
interdependencies that weigh heavily upon the engineering profession.
Pick one of the following cases: how would you (re-)frame the question?
How would you go about analyzing the problem and weighing the
importance of the various conflicting constituencies and views? What
kind of data would you amass to support your case or counter competing
arguments? And finally, what sort of solution would you advocate, why,
and what consequences would you have to prepare to deal with?

Case 1 : Public vs Domestic Television

(derived from

German broadcasting history, 1933-1939)

New, 180-line television service has just been introduced1. The new
receivers are quite expensive, but like any new technology, the industry
expects that economies of scale will alleviate the problem within a few
years. The new Nazi government is concerned.
Its populist wing of the government thinks that the new medium
should not enter the world a plaything for the rich, while the lower
and middle classes look on enviously. Moreover, they fear that this
will both shape the programming that develops as well as the
popular perception of the medium. So they are proponents of
public television and cinema-style exhibition (even with big screens
if possible) until prices are low enough for everyone to afford
receivers.

For comparisons sake, current US television is 525 lines.

 The governments propaganda office agrees, but for a different

reason: their studies have shown that propaganda received in public
settings is more effective than when people can talk back in
private, so they too prefer public, cinema-style television.
The electronics industry is split. They are nearing the end of a
campaign to sell a radio to every German household, and their
future depends on finding another best seller.
o One group within the industry argues that unless they scale
up production, television will stay expensive, and the medium
may die on the vine. Moreover. This group thinks that they
should aggressively promote the sale of their television and
thus German technological standards and infrastructure to
other countries (Latin America and Eastern Europe in
particular), building in a growth market for the future. So
cheaper, 180 line receivers (looking something like modified
radios) are the way to go.
o Another group argues that mass production of the new 405
line television is imminent and should be their focus. If they
ramp up efforts to promote and produce cheaper 180 line
television, they will slow down development of the new highdefinition television from one to two years to three to five
years. And they might alienate a public seeking a better
quality image, and whose frame of reference for moving
pictures is the film medium. [The other group sees this not as
a danger but as an opportunity: a chance to accelerate
product obsolesce and sell even more receivers.]
The Post Ministry, looking forward to greater political influence and
income from television receiver license fees, agrees, and wants to
see mass acceptance of domestic television as soon as possible.
They have strong alliances with the electronics industry, and want
to consolidate their power while the new Nazi government is young.
Television engineers are split. They want the medium to catch on
and be accepted as a domestic medium; but they are also much
more interested in higher definition television (405 lines); they
want to be seen as socially relevant and enjoy the same respect as
their radio counterparts which might argue for quick cultural
presence of their new product; but they also want to be seen as
visionary, and they know how much better 405 line television can
be. Some are nationalistic enough to want Germany to have the
worlds first national television service, and yet pragmatic enough

to see the value of delay and a better system. Others are

pragmatic enough to want the government technology
development subsidies that are available, yet nationalistic enough
to want Germany to have the worlds best television technology.
What should the engineers do? Make an alliance with the propaganda
ministry and the populist wing of the party, and focus on large screen
projection technologies? Or try to lower the cost of receivers,
circumventing the concerns of the populists by making modified radios
with small display tubes? This may not make their corporate bosses
happy, since they seek profits; but it may have the added effect of
easing public acceptance of the new technology, since it will seem
familiar. Or should they redouble their efforts to make higher definition
(405 line) systems, even if the increased costs will more or less force
them into public cinema style television? Which is better: political
support or market support or technological progress? Government
investment or market success? Alliance with sister media (radio or
film) or independence and autonomy as a new medium? Each decision
brings with it design implications, financial implications, and crucially
shapes the future shape of the new medium.

Case 2 : The US Picks a Television Standard

(derived from
the struggles among manufacturers, broadcasters and the FCC to settle
broadcast standards between the 1940s through to the early 1950s)
[background] RCA was created as an AM radio patent monopoly holder
during WW1, but gradually grew into a corporation of its own. RCA also
aggressively acquired early television patents, achieving a near monopoly
on technologies designed to broadcast at very high frequencies (VHF).
But it did not control FM broadcasting, developed by Edwin Armstrong,
nor did it control competing television technologies designed to operate
at ultra high frequencies (UHF). FM radio operates at very high
frequencies (VHF). RCA largely controlled the decisions made by the
Radio Manufacturers of America (RMA), the broadcasting industrys lobby
group. In 1941, the FCC accepted the RMAs recommendation that RCAs
early 441-line television system be accepted for the nation. Two final
points: the electronics industry was seen as a potential growth sector for
the US economy in the post war years; and the post-war years were
overshadowed by the governments suspicion and fear of Communist

subversion, and thus its deep concern with a controlled communications

environment.
Other companies such as Columbia (owner of CBS) and Philco (Philo
Farnsworths old company) had other ideas. Using their patents designed
to operate in the UHF spectrum, Columbia, Philco and others proposed a
variety of alternatives to the RCA plan, ranging from 16MHz color
systems, to high definition black and white systems of between 750 and
1000 lines. Even with these high-demand systems, UHF could support
many more stations per market than VHF. RCAs preferred VHF
spectrum, by contrast, would limited programming opportunities (the 13
channels theoretically possible in fact came with significant interference
problems, meaning that the real number in any given reception area would
be significantly less), and it would assure that competition to RCAs AM
radio patents from FM would be minimized, since television broadcasting
would be in direct competition with FM broadcasting.
Many engineers were consulted by the National Television Standards
Council, which was charged by the FCC with making a recommendation.
What was wisdom? A compromise of 525 lines black and white in the VHF
spectrum or a high-definition color system in the UHF spectrum? The
interests of RCA or the other companies allied against it? A vote for
limited stations per market (VHF) or expanded stations per market (UHF)?
Putting television directly in competition with FM radio, or giving the new
type of radio spectrum within which to develop? Closing down
opportunities for communication, or expanding them? Should engineers
stick to the corporate interests of their employers, or strive to develop
state of the art technologies? Could one argue for a pluralistic system
with multiple standards (with precedents in recorded music with 33rpm
and 45rpm records; or film with 35mm, 70mm, and 16mm formats; or
print, with many different formats), or was a nationally unified system
such as that enjoyed by radio and the telephone to be preferred?
Should corporate interests, political power, or superior design and
technological results be the determining factor?

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

3.003 Principles of Engineering Practice

Spring 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.